The mantra of "not making criminals out of law abiding citizens" is a
long standing one in conservative lore. It was certainly front and
center in arguments against a gun registry 10+ years ago and even
further back against medicare. I find it hard to believe that a Reform
candidate from Calgary would not be susceptible to this line of
reasoning - even if channeled through an Ontario MP.
The question for a conservative politician is what public interest is
served by the government intruding on the privacy of my home for the
purposes of checking on how I am watching a DVD that I legally purchased
(the right to view)?
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 11:48 -0500, Darryl O'Neill wrote:
> I don't believe for a minute the the Tories canned the long census to
> keep people out of jail. I think that they want to lose the information
> to fund programs that they don't want paid for. I also am not under the
> delusion that the Liberals care that much about the copyright bill.
>> My point was that in one case the Tories are claiming that they don't
> want to Criminalize innocent Canadians and in the other they are
> perfectly willing to do it. My faith in the opposition parties is that
> they are willing to jump on this fact to make an issue out of it just to
> cause problems for the Tories. We still need to send a message to Peter
> Braid but I am not sure if he can talk while Harper is drinking water.
>> Russell McOrmond wrote:
> >
> > On 10-11-20 11:22 PM, Darryl O'Neill wrote:
> >> The Tories killed the Long Census since they don't want to turn ordinary
> >> citizens into criminals for not filling in a form.
> >> But it would appear that they want to make it illegal to copy your own
> >> DVD's onto your own iPod or Blackberry or to watch your own purchased
> >> movie on your own PC.
> >
> > Here is the difference:
> >
> > With the Census they were well aware of what they were doing, but
> > some of us disagree on the effect. In my mind the ultimate effect of
> > getting rid of the long-form census will be to create an incentive to
> > merge databases kept by different departments as well as data
> > collected by the private sector. Short-form: the effect will be a far
> > greater invasion of our privacy than the long form could ever be.
> >
> >
> > With TPMs, they aren't aware of what TPMs are or the effect. They
> > believe that TPMs added to content alone can "make decisions" (IE:
> > just like believing a paperback book can read itself out loud), and
> > are unaware of the impact of TPMs on our devices. They have never
> > read section 3, 15 or 18 of the current copyright act or any WIPO
> > treaties to notice that "access" was never before contemplated in
> > copyright (for good reason), and thus "access controls" should never
> > be contemplated in copyright. Like the special interest lawyers that
> > are advising them, they don't eve know the difference between an
> > access control and a use control.
> >
> >
> > Please do not assume that any parliamentarians from any party are in
> > favour of TPMs in Copyright because they actually understand what they
> > are, or know what the consequences will be. Nearly all real-world
> > impacts of TPMs will be unintended consequences.
> >
> >> I think that we should engage the Liberal/NDP's on this side of the
> >> issue. I am sure that they would love to bring both of these issues up
> >> again during questioning period.
> >
> > Please take a glance at the transcripts from the debate that has
> > happened in the house so far of C-32. This is the starting position
> > of the parties.
> >
> > The most important questions are those that happen in the committee.
> > As they talk to witnesses, they need to be asking smart questions of
> > them to try to get useful answers. Having them ask proponents of TPM
> > legislation skill testing questions about real-world technology
> > (cryptography, etc) would make for some pretty interesting committee
> > hearings given it would be more obvious that the beneficiaries of TPMs
> > are monopolist technology manufacturers and not copyright holders (IE:
> > This is about BSA, not RIAA).
> >
>>> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
>kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org>http://astoria.ccjclearline.com/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20101121/aae38731/attachment.bin>